It is, of course, a matter of fine judgement as to
whether it is necessary to declare every interest in the course
of debate and if the Register becomes more detailed and perhaps
less relevant to its original purpose, those judgements will become
more difficult.

My fears on this point are reinforced by the finding
against Mr Robert Sheldon. In cases as general as this, the pecuniary
interest could not reasonably be thought to influence a Member's
speech in any improper way. Declaration should surely be limited
to interests which are specifically rather than generally relevant
to the debate. MPs may be influenced in debate by many interests
which are not registrable; are we to say that those with children
should not bring their experience to bear in debates on childcare?
The purpose of the rules is to prevent Parliament being misused
for particular interests, and they should be drawn widely enough
to prevent this, but not so widely as to potentially hinder a
Member's performance of their general Parliamentary rule and duties.

Reports on Rt Hon John Major, Stephen Timms and
Bowen Wells

Occasionally, even where no breach of the rules has
been found the Committee's acceptance of the Commissioner's reports
and judgements have nevertheless led to implied criticism of Members
and to recommendations that are more stringent than the rules
on which they are based. The first example is the complaint against
Mr Bowen Wells (2nd Report Session 1999-2000) in which it is remarked:

"Mr Wells would, however,
have been wise ... to declare the possible connection of BHI,
through the principal subsidiary the Belize Bank, with the banana
industry"

In the report it is conceded that the interest of
BHI in that the banana industry was indirect. Mr Wells's evidence
makes it clear that the situation of the banana industry was never
considered by the BHI board itself, and that any links with the
banana industry would have been through its subsidiary.

In the complaint against Mr Stephen Timms (6th Report
of 1999/2000), the finding being:

"Though, in hindsight,
it might have been prudent for Mr Timms to have declared his registered
connection with Ovum Ltd when moving the amendments, I do not
uphold Mr Butler's complaint that he breached the rules by not
doing so."

In the report on the Rt Hon John Major (10th Report
of 1999/2000), there was no finding of a breach because Mr Major
had sought and followed the guidance of the authorities. Nevertheless
it was indicated that a more stringent approach should have been
adopted. I regard that view as questionable. However it should
surely be beyond question that Members should not be retrospectively
rebuked while following the official guidance.

Report on Rt Hon William Hague

In the Committee's report on William Hague (4th Report
of 1999/2000), the Commissioner found that Mr Hague's use of a
gymnasium at Lord Archer's invitation was a registrable benefit
which might "reasonably be thought by others to influence
his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions
taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament."

Given that Lord Archer was a member of the same political
party as Mr Hague, has already been ennobled and that any benefit
Mr Hague could confer on Lord Archer would arise from his position
as Leader of the Conservative Party, rather than as a Member of
Parliament, I do not agree that it is reasonable to could come
to such a conclusion.